Another 99 metric tons of halibut caught by trawlers
Craig Medred |
Oct 10, 2011
A week after a Seattle-based trawler dragging nets through the Gulf of Alaska to scoop up cod hauled up a huge catch of halibut to lead the offshore fleet in a 104-metric-ton weekly total of what is called halibut "by-catch," the Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says the big boats that fish largely unseen off the Alaska's coast cut back. The halibut by-catch -- all of which is dumped back into the sea, much of it dead -- was down almost 5 percent the last week of the month, according to NOAA spokeswoman Julie Speegle. "Between Sept. 18 and Sept. 24, 104 metric tons or 229,278 pounds of halibut was caught incidentally in all trawl fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska,'' she said in an email. The following week saw 99 metric tons caught in the same fishery. NOAA measures tonnage using a metric ton, which is 2,200 pounds, compared to the standard American ton of 2,000 pounds. By-catch in the trawl fisheries has become an issue because of the dispute raging between long line commercial halibut fishermen and Alaska charter boat operators. NOAA, at the behest of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, earlier this year proposed a crackdown on the charter fleet even though recreational anglers aboard charters catch fewer halibut than are caught and thrown away in the trawl fisheries and a small fraction -- about 10 percent -- of the number caught in the commercial long line fisheries. When news got out that the NOAA plan would force a one-fish bag limit on anglers fishing aboard charters in such popular ports as Homer, Seward and Valdez next year, a firestorm of controversy arose. NOAA subsequently refused to rubber stamp the council plan, a rare move. Instead it sent it back, saying significant questions had been raised and suggesting, among other things, that the Council consider the economic impact of a one-fish limit. Charter operators have insisted that a one-fish limit would put many of them out of business and ripple through the Alaska tourism industry. Imposition of a one-fish limit appears to have stalled for at least a year while the council reconsiders. But concern surrounding the health of Gulf of Alaska halibut stocks has once again pushed by-catch into the spotlight. An anonymous blogger has focused on the issue for some time now. Tholepin, as the blog is called, Friday headlined: "Getting Wasted: The Tragedy Continues" and claimed the "Miss Leona," a cod trawler based out of Bellingham, Wash., in the first week of October topped the 43-percent halibut haul of the Seattle-based trawler "Alaska Beauty" back in September. The Leona's catch, Tholepin said, citing NOAA data, was 48 percent halibut. "Tholepin is not a credible source," Speegle claimed in an email to Dispatch, although the website's figures appear to nearly duplicate those of NOAA. Speegle, however, noted in a follow-up email exchange that the blog claimed "228,800 pounds of halibut wasted by draggers" in the week ending Sept. 24 when the actual total was 229,278 pounds -- a difference of 478 pounds or about 0.2 percent. She did note the numbers are a bit of a moving target. One significant fact, however, does remain unchanged -- trawlers catch and kill a lot of halibut. Their 5 million pound limit exceeds the total charter halibut catch for all of Alaska last year. And, as The Alaska Marine Conservation Council, an organization dedicated "to protecting the health of Alaska’s oceans and sustaining coastal communities' working waterfronts," notes: "Only dead halibut count towards the cap, and a formula which assigns a mortality rate to each gear type and target fishery is used to determine how many halibut caught as by catch count towards the cap each year."
by sigfus45 | October 12, 2011 - 6:39am
I'm not at all impressed with dumping perfectly good fish back dead or dying into the ocean in order to make room for a fish that commands a higher price. All "bycatch" should require landing. If profit is the push, maybe the trawler operators should learn how to fish for their desired species and learn to leave as much of the not wanted fishes untouched. Bring on more observers until skippers can be trusted not to dump perfectly good fish.
by Oldhaines | October 12, 2011 - 8:17am
Those trawlers captains are dumping Halibut because they are forced to by law. The halibut commands a far higher price than the cod and pollock that they are targeting but they are not allowed to retain it under they theory that if they were allowed t oland Halibut then they would target it rather than cod. The trawl fishery is also killing King Salmon by the metric ton and dumping them overboard as well. For now all you can really do is stop eating pacific cod, pacific whiting or pollack and all of those fake krab and shrimp products.
by sourdoughmel | October 11, 2011 - 10:40am
Most Trawlers are owned by big corporations and the layman's definition of "corporation" is a profit oriented company without a conscience. That means they have money for lobbying and buying off people in power or getting people fired. I know this sounds like strong language but consider this. Every department of the NOAA and fish and game offices in both the US and Canada know that the trawlers tear up the ocean bottoms and have the biggest by catch waste. A trawler has from three to seven deckhands, multiply that by the number of trawlers and you get a very small number of fishermen that are impacted financially. The rest of the money goes to the corporate owned boat owners. Just one boat harbor in Alaska has more people making money from charter boats than the deckhands of all trawlers combined, especially when you factor in the support industries. The only way to fight this wanton waste of our fisheries is to lobby your people in public office to outlaw trawler/dragging fishing. The squeaking wheel gets the grease.
by thedude | October 10, 2011 - 8:54pm
How can Mrs. Speegle claim Tholepin isn't a credible source? She doesn't even know them.
by alaskapi | October 10, 2011 - 7:44pm
keep up the heat on this, Craig. |













Comments